My opinion on filling Supreme Court vacancies close to an election

[Craig234]

In short, I'm for it. If there's a vacancy close to an election, the president is still in office at that time, and has every right to exercise his or her powers to the last day they're in office. It's normal politics for them to want to get to select a justice, and even though it is a lifetime appointment, they were elected and there's nothing really wrong with it.

But, since Republican stole a seat so egregiously in 2016, with bad and dishonest arguments we knew were lies but are now proven lies, they owe Democrats a seat - just because of hypocrisy and justice, they need to be held to their behavior in 2016, and not get to appoint this Justice.

Democrats should do basically anything they can to make sure that happens, though it's very difficult. Any voters with any patriotism or morals should vote out any who do not in November. Republican voters have shamed themselves badly with their naked pursuit of power at any cost, including voter suppression, buying elections by special interests, and stunts like the Supreme Court theft.

I'd like to see Republicans not get to appoint this vacancy, and for Biden to appoint it, and then to return to normalcy where the president gets to appoint it any time they're in office (short of extreme situations like a vacancy on January 19 the day before leaving office). Otherwise, it's baseless, made-up limits - and McConnell was openly talking about plans to block Hillary all four years as I recall.

A bigger problem is the risk of the lame duck period - imagine trump and the Republican Senate voted out, knowing they're voted out, with over two months left. Imagine a Republican House. They could do practically anything corrupt during that period, not caring about the people's wishes even more than they usually don't, with no election issues, happy to spite the voters who voted them out.

It's not quite clear what to do about that issue. There are 'norms' and 'decency' to politicians respecting the voters' choice, but it's clear those don't exist for Republicans.

 

[joluoto]

In short, I'm for it. If there's a vacancy close to an election, the president is still in office at that time, and has every right to exercise his or her powers to the last day they're in office. It's normal politics for them to want to get to select a justice, and even though it is a lifetime appointment, they were elected and there's nothing really wrong with it.

But, since Republican stole a seat so egregiously in 2016, with bad and dishonest arguments we knew were lies but are now proven lies, they owe Democrats a seat - just because of hypocrisy and justice, they need to be held to their behavior in 2016, and not get to appoint this Justice.

Democrats should do basically anything they can to make sure that happens, though it's very difficult. Any voters with any patriotism or morals should vote out any who do not in November. Republican voters have shamed themselves badly with their naked pursuit of power at any cost, including voter suppression, buying elections by special interests, and stunts like the Supreme Court theft.

A bigger problem is the risk of the lame duck period - imagine trump and the Republican Senate voted out, knowing they're voted out, with over two months left. Imagine a Republican House. They could do practically anything corrupt during that period, not caring about the people's wishes even more than they usually don't, with no election issues, happy to spite the voters who voted them out.

It's not quite clear what to do about that issue. There are 'norms' and 'decency' to politicians respecting the voters' choice, but it's clear those don't exist for Republicans.

If Trump and Turtleman haven't been able to get their pick approved before the election and they lose, they'd still try to get him/ her through in the lame duck period.

 

[Master Debator]

If the Republicans push through a nominee the Democrats will almost certainly respond by expanding the Court when they regain the Senate. Of course this will only escalate the petty politics but what else can they do? Personally, if old white people want to shit all over American democracy I'm inclined to let them.

 

[Rexedgar]

The two month period between election and inauguration is so that you can get your crap packed, if you are voted out, imo.

 

[Craig234]

If Trump and Turtleman haven't been able to get their pick approved before the election and they lose, they'd still try to get hiim7 her through in the lame duck period.

That's the most likely scenario. And it's not looking good for Democrats' ability to prevent it. The best idea I've seen is the House doing a second impeachment, which is justified anyway, that MIGHT help prevent it.

 

[Craig234]

If the Republicans push through a nominee the Democrats will almost certainly respond by expanding the Court when they regain the Senate. Of course this will only escalate the petty politics but what else can they do? Personally, if old white people want to shit all over American democracy I'm inclined to let them.

Ironically, Ruth strongly opposed the expanding of the court. Republicans have already declared war on this, both trump and McConnell supporting the attempt.

 

[Master Debator]

Ironically, Ruth strongly opposed the expanding of the court. Republicans have already declared war on this, both trump and McConnell supporting the attempt.

Old Democrats are still holding on to the delusion of the existence of reasonable Republicans. They don't exist anymore for the simple reason that it has to be war. The Republicans are fighting for their lives, politically and culturally and they aren't going to just lay down and die. I kind of hope they do push a nominee through, no sense in keeping up the pretense and further.

 

[Craig234]

I kind of hope they do push a nominee through, no sense in keeping up the pretense and further.

That's just ridiculous, wanting the huge harm to our country from another Republican justice because wanting to 'drop a pretense'. That's like saying, 'I hope a nuclear war does happen, to drop the pretense that countries are peaceful'.

 

[redbeer]

In short, I'm for it. If there's a vacancy close to an election, the president is still in office at that time, and has every right to exercise his or her powers to the last day they're in office. It's normal politics for them to want to get to select a justice, and even though it is a lifetime appointment, they were elected and there's nothing really wrong with it.

But, since Republican stole a seat so egregiously in 2016, with bad and dishonest arguments we knew were lies but are now proven lies, they owe Democrats a seat - just because of hypocrisy and justice, they need to be held to their behavior in 2016, and not get to appoint this Justice.

Democrats should do basically anything they can to make sure that happens, though it's very difficult. Any voters with any patriotism or morals should vote out any who do not in November. Republican voters have shamed themselves badly with their naked pursuit of power at any cost, including voter suppression, buying elections by special interests, and stunts like the Supreme Court theft.

I'd like to see Republicans not get to appoint this vacancy, and for Biden to appoint it, and then to return to normalcy where the president gets to appoint it any time they're in office (short of extreme situations like a vacancy on January 19 the day before leaving office). Otherwise, it's baseless, made-up limits - and McConnell was openly talking about plans to block Hillary all four years as I recall.

A bigger problem is the risk of the lame duck period - imagine trump and the Republican Senate voted out, knowing they're voted out, with over two months left. Imagine a Republican House. They could do practically anything corrupt during that period, not caring about the people's wishes even more than they usually don't, with no election issues, happy to spite the voters who voted them out.

It's not quite clear what to do about that issue. There are 'norms' and 'decency' to politicians respecting the voters' choice, but it's clear those don't exist for Republicans.

Elections have consequences and since Trump is President and Republicans have control of the Senate....why not?....Do you think the Democrats would do differently? They just need to do their duty and confirm the next justice. This is simple politics, and not even equating the massive obstruction against Trump the last four years....but when we add their vitriol into the equation.....the answer is the heck with what the left whines about, as they are getting what they deserve....period.

 

[Mycroft]

There are 'norms' and 'decency' to politicians respecting the voters' choice, but it's clear those don't exist for Republicans.

The concept of "norms" and "decency" doesn't exist for either Party. It's all about politics.

 

[redbeer]

That's the most likely scenario. And it's not looking good for Democrats' ability to prevent it. The best idea I've seen is the House doing a second impeachment, which is justified anyway, that MIGHT help prevent it.

Lol, "a second impeachment".....cry babies abusing the constitution is pitiful.

 

[Deuce]

Elections have consequences and since Trump is President and Republicans have control of the Senate....why not?....Do you think the Democrats would do differently? They just need to do their duty and confirm the next justice. This is simple politics, and not even equating the massive obstruction against Trump the last four years....but when we add their vitriol into the equation.....the answer is the heck with what the left whines about, as they are getting what they deserve....period.

Did you believe that when Obama was in office? Should Merrick Garland have been given a confirmation vote?

 

[Deuce]

Lol, "a second impeachment".....cry babies abusing the constitution is pitiful.

The House of Representatives has every right to begin an impeachment process whenever they want, sorry you hate the constitution. The Democrats control the house and, what was the saying, “elections have consequences?”

 

[Master Debator]

That's just ridiculous, wanting the huge harm to our country from another Republican justice because wanting to 'drop a pretense'. That's like saying, 'I hope a nuclear war does happen, to drop the pretense that countries are peaceful'.

Its actually not like that because the Republicans pushing through a Supreme Court pick, which is their constitional right, while politically a shitty and blatantly hypocritical act, will not result in deaths of millions of people and wide scale ecological disaster. At least not immediately.

 

[Deuce]

At the end of the day, the GOP is going to do what they think is most politically advantageous. They do not give two shits about decorum, or fairness. It would be BRAZENLY hypocritical for them to ram through a nominee this close to the election, but they absolutely do not care. It’s just the political math.

It IS, however, an interesting conundrum. I think the most likely scenario by far is that they do what we all expect: jam an under-qualified ideologue through before the election and the consequences be damned. A SCOTUS seat is huge, a lifetime appointment with potentially dramatic effect right now. For conservatism in general, it’s a big win and there’s that whole “bird in the hand” situation.

However, there are some potential benefits to waiting on that nomination.

There are a number of GOP senators in vulnerable positions this November, and being so openly opportunistic about the death of an American hero and blatantly hypocritical on their “no nominations in an election year” pretense could hurt those specific senators. Those senators might be hesitant to jump on this right now for fear of them losing a seat (and possibly losing a majority in the Senate if Democrats get riled up enough to sweep several of the vulnerable seats and take the White House) They know Democrats will be looking at retaliation, and expanding the court is the only real remedy to these shady GOP tactics.

Conversely, dangling that carrot of a SCOTUS pick could be a great motivator for Trump voters and for those senators up for re-election. “We’re going to let the people decide this, so you better make sure it’s Trump and us instead of a liberal picking the candidate!” Might get a lot of those traditionally-conservative voters who dislike Trump to get out and vote. Maybe they’re abortion-centric voters who want a pro-life judge on the court. Maybe they’re fiscally conservative and are tired of Trump’s antics and incompetence. These people are not voting for Joe Biden, but many of them are going to just stay home. Turnout wins elections, not that mythical voter who is “undecided” on October 31st.

There’s also another danger of over stacking the court with conservatives right this second: Obamacare is on the docket very shortly due to an absolutely absurd lower court ruling that the ACA became unconstitutional due to an executive order changing one dollar amount. But if that goes to SCOTUS and gets overturned, the GOP will be kicking millions of people off their health insurance overnight. The GOP has relied on the pretense of chasing that white whale, actually catching it would be devastating for them.

 

[Craig234]

Its actually not like that because the Republicans pushing through a Supreme Court pick, which is their constitional right, while politically a shitty and blatantly hypocritical act, will not result in deaths of millions of people and wide scale ecological disaster. At least not immediately.

You don't understand analogies.

 

[redbeer]

Did you believe that when Obama was in office? Should Merrick Garland have been given a confirmation vote?

Wasn't it a democratic President and a republican senate?.....that's not the same as a republican President and a republican senate. The President picks the nominee, then the Senate either confirms or denies. Why can't Trump, who is President not pick a nominee?

 

[Master Debator]

You don't understand analogies.

I understand them just fine. I understand you just equated political setbacks to mass casualty events. Excuse my for not sharing your hysteria.

 

[redbeer]

The House of Representatives has every right to begin an impeachment process whenever they want, sorry you hate the constitution. The Democrats control the house and, what was the saying, “elections have consequences?”

It's all a waste of time, partisan bs, but go ahead lefties....do it again! Just say goodbye for a long time with having any respect or clout in American politics. Americans are way, way past this kind of crud, and are wanting people to actually pass laws for the good of the country....the partisan divisiveness of the left is getting old to watch....it's time to get rid of the kindergarten antics.

 

[Craig234]

It IS, however, an interesting conundrum. I think the most likely scenario by far is that they do what we all expect: jam an under-qualified ideologue through before the election and the consequences be damned. A SCOTUS seat is huge, a lifetime appointment with potentially dramatic effect right now. For conservatism in general, it’s a big win and there’s that whole “bird in the hand” situation.

A number of good points, but I disagree with saying 'under-qualified' is the issue. You could argue they ARE under-qualified, but the real issue is more that they are essentially politically corrupt ideological weapons - groomed to support plutocratic, anti-popular rule legal theories, more than just being under-qualified. E.g., Bork was quite 'qualified', but supported disastrous views making him a threat to the country.

 

[Craig234]

I understand them just fine.

You've gone from not understanding analogies, to not being able to understand you don't understand analogies.

 

[Master Debator]

Wasn't it a democratic President and a republican senate?.....that's not the same as a republican President and a republican senate. The President picks the nominee, then the Senate either confirms or denies. Why can't Trump, who is President not pick a nominee?

Interesting. Does this abdication of duties only exist near elections? For instance, if its a Democratic president in his first term and a Republican senate, do you think its within their right to refuse to confirm or deny his nominee?

 

[Master Debator]

You've gone from not understanding analogies, to not being able to understand you don't understand analogies.

And now you're arguing in the weeds because your analogy was bad and needlessly hyperbolic.

 

[Deuce]

Wasn't it a democratic President and a republican senate?.....that's not the same as a republican President and a republican senate. The President picks the nominee, then the Senate either confirms or denies. Why can't Trump, who is President not pick a nominee?

The GOP proclaimed that you can’t fill a SCOTUS seat in an election year because the people should decide who fills the seat. It doesn’t matter what party controls either the White House or the senate with that proclaimed standard. We all knew they were full of shit when they said it, which is what we are pointing out now. The GOP is being openly hypocritical just like we all knew they would, and you’re backing them and their propaganda just like we all knew you would.

But going off your new fake stance:
Why can’t Democrats stack the court with sixteen young, healthy, straight up communists next time they hold the Senate?

 

[redbeer]

Interesting. Does this abdication of duties only exist near elections? For instance, if its a Democratic president in his first term and a Republican senate, do you think its within their right to refuse to confirm or deny his nominee?

Like it or not....the President nominates the pick and the Senate confirms or denies.....it's the way it is. Do you actually think if it's a democratic president and a democratic controlled senate, that the lefties would wait, lol?